Friday, March 8, 2013

Father Guarnizo's Interview With Ignazio Ingrao

Ignazio Ingrao wrote an article entitled (translated into English) "The Secret Dossier Will Determine the Conclave". That article became the basis (using the word "basis" loosely) of numerous other published pieces. Several weeks ago Father Marcel Guarnizo interviewed Mr Ingrao and wrote an account of that interview. A copy of that account was forwarded to me and I publish it below. Because of its length, I'll put it beneath the jump break so..

(Father's words begin below)

The
resignation of Pope Benedict XVI and my interview with the author that caused
the international media frenzy.

Ingrao’s
story sparked news reports across the globe. These subsequent reports launched
serious allegations against the Vatican and the Pope. Ingrao’s article was the
basis for an explosive report by Mrs. Conchita De Gregorio, published in the
Italian daily La Repubblica also on
February 21. De Gregorio’s article, headlined “Sex and Careerism, the Blackmail
in the Vatican, Behind the Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI” ([my translation]),
would become the main source for dozens of major news stories around the world.
There are reasons for the explosive response to the La Repubblica story: The claims in De Gregorio’s article vastly
embellished the information the La
Repubblica author had received from Mr. Ingrao. De Gregorio had based her
article on Ingrao’s and then gone beyond, “to extremes”, as Mr. Ingrao later
told me.

I
have read both pieces and can report that this is true. Ingrao’s piece does not
make many of the vital claims La
Repubblica published under De Gregorio’s byline. However, LaRepubblica’s
version of the story soon became the basis for many other reports. The articles
that would be derived from all La
Repubblica trended to the scandalous.
The London Guardian linked the pope’s
resignation to the discovery of a “… network of gay prelates…some of whom were
being blackmailed by outsiders.” Over at
the Irish Times, a day later on
February 22, Paddy Agnew reported that the Pope’s resignation “…was at least
partly prompted by the “inappropriate influence” of various lobbies, including
a gay lobby…”

So
there you have it: A media firestorm: Prelates being blackmailed, money being
stolen, swirl upon swirl of innuendo and rumors in Rome and around the world.

My
simple objection is that none of this has been verified. Speculation is very
different from facts. If I, as a professional journalist state that prelates are
being blackmailed by a gay lobby, does this not presuppose that I know who and
why, or at the very least, have sources who have substantiated these
allegations before I rush them into print? As a responsible news reporter, am I
not compelled to determine that there is some news and not just empty
speculation? Am I not morally obliged to determine, when repeating the claims
of another publication—such as La
Repubblica—that the report it quotes exists, that someone has seen it, and
that it says what in fact actual, reliable witnesses purport that it says?

With
these questions about the journalists involved in the current swirl of news
stories in mind, I decided to seek out Mr. Ignazio Ingrao, and seek to better
understand what had taken place and what his intention was when writing the
article. I was also hoping to clarify some of the questions raised by his
report and the ones that followed it. The faithful and many other readers
around the world, needed clarity on these issues, I believe. So I called Mr.
Ingrao, and left a message asking if we could speak about the matter.

Mr.
Ingrao kindly agreed to meet me at the Press Office of the Holy See February
25, and we walked over to a café to have a coffee and talk. Mr. Ingrao is
young, soft-spoken, and seemingly a modest and humble personality.

I started
by reiterating some things I already knew about the news stories, namely that
they had all made statements about the contents of a recent Vatican dossier on
the Vatileaks scandal, prepared for Pope Benedict by three cardinals. The cardinals
produced a single copy, and gave it to the pontiff, who apparently ordered it
to be locked in a safe. I asked Mr. Ingrao if he had in fact seen the dossier,
because it was clear that the impression that some had seen the dossier was
being circulated in the media. He replied “ I have never seen the dossier.”

He
explained what he was trying to do with his article: “… The key point was to
try and understand how the commission of cardinals had used the information,
their methodology… But I do not know the conclusions that they reached. Not
even one copy of the verbal testimony was given to anyone. The commission kept
all the information. Not even a sheet a paper about it (as a leak), exists to
my knowledge.”

I
then proceeded to try to clear up another ambiguity. “Have any of the cardinals
in charge of the investigation, told you anything about the contents?” I asked.

“Not
a word”, he responded. “What I wrote did not come from them.”

Mr.
Ingrao’s response was compatible with my own research into the matter. One of
the cardinals physically recoiled at even the mention, of the dossier. He
positively laughed that anyone in the press could even insinuate such a thing. And,
clearly, he felt that even the question was an attack on the dignity of the
commission he participated in.

I
then asked Mr. Ingrao, “Has the dossier been leaked to anyone? Did a leak make it possible for you and La Repubblica to write about it?”

Mr.
Ingrao answered plainly: “It is not true that the dossier has leaked.”

He added
that the impression that someone had the cardinals’ dossier or a report on its
contents was the result of the fact that Panorama
and La Repubblica had both printed
articles that referenced the dossier. They had produced these news pieces
almost simultaneously. But their contents were different. Most simply assumed
that the dossier had therefore been leaked.

But
the truth, Mr. Ingrao told me, is that Panorama
had forwarded an advance copy of Ingrao’s article to La Repubblica and this had been the basis for what La Repubblica had published, albeit
taking the innuendo to a higher level, as he described it. Mr. Ingrao repeated,
that La Repubblica had taken his work
“…in a direction I had never intended.”

A
further vital question was lingering in my mind. Is there a powerful gay lobby that blackmailed the Pope or even
high prelates, and that this undue pressure is what had caused the Pope to
resign? Was it Mr. Ingrao’s view that the Pope was trying to protect the Church
from further scandal and revelations being released and that to do so, he had
opted for a resignation? His answer was to the point, “It cannot be said that a
gay lobby forced the Pope to resign.” And that furthermore it “… is totally
false that the Pope or the Holy See, has ever been blackmailed to force a
resignation.”

Why
then all this talk about the Pope resigning because of the now infamous dossier?
“The dossier…” he repeated, “…cannot be said to have been the reason for the
Pope’s resignation. The resignation was a decision that was maturing in the
Pope’s mind. He resigned for a multiplicity of reasons.”

However,
Mr. Ingrao said, he felt that the exaggerated and unsubstantiated reports may
have been in part “designed certainly to
hurt the Pope…certainly to put the Holy See in a bad light.”

The
Vatican described the allegations as, “… reports often not verified, and
uncorroborated, or even false, which have caused great damage to persons and institutions.”
(My translation)

I
shared with him that clearly the impression given to the world, with all these
rumors and scandals, is that the Roman curia is a terrible place and that the cardinals
and people who work for the Holy Father and in the curia were a scandal to the
Church. I explained that this image was far from my experience in Rome and that
I thought it a privilege to deal with many competent and many holy people in
the Holy See. I asked what he thought.

He
did not hesitate. “The impression that the Roman curia is a terrible place is
totally false,” he told me. “The curia is full of good people and they do a job
that is critical. My evaluation of the curia is absolutely a positive one. Like
any institution, it has its own troubles, but the image of a general disease in
the curia, is not what I have experienced in my years of work at the Vatican.”

Mr.
Ingrao then explained that the objective of his Panorama article had been to highlight the investigation and the dossier
it had produced. He felt that the fact that the Holy Father had requested it warranted
a report, and that he was trying to shed light on the methodology the cardinals
had used. He added that the cardinals’ dossier is a historical document, which is
important now and will be important for the successor of Pope Benedict XVI. He said
he thinks the Pope had exercised great courage in asking for the investigation
and that now the next Pope would have very useful information to carry on with
his ministry. He expressed that he had tried to act with utmost respect, as he
felt that what he was writing was very important.

He said
that the resignation of the Pope had seemed to him to be a “…great gesture of
humility. A gesture of love and the ability to give way to another Pope, when
he felt his strength was wanting… I think people are starting to understand,
the spiritual nature of his decision.”

In
closing, I asked him if he had ever personally met the Pope and what was his
impression? His answer: “Pope Benedict is very close to the people. He looks
you in the eye. I absolutely admire the Pope. And I am sorry for the great
suffering the Pope has been enduring.”

We
spoke a bit longer, I thanked him and we parted ways.

What
a different story from the man who started an international firestorm, and a
most needed testimony from the man who wrote the original source of all the
scandalous, uncorroborated accusations being launched by the media at this
time.

Is
civility in this matter still a possibility? Is the international media capable
of journalistic professionalism? Will those responsible for this firestorm of
innuendo consider retracting much of what has been said and act with the
respect due to spiritual leader and head of state such as Benedict XVI.

Please be respectful and courteous to others on this blog. We reserve the right to delete comments that violate courtesy and/or those that promote dissent from the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.